G.R. No. 95604 April 29, 1994
LUCIANO KIMPO y NIÑANUEVO, petitioner, vs. THE SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Luciano Kimpo y Niñanuevo, a Special Collecting Officer of the Bureau of Domestic Trade at General Santos City, was charged with and found guilty by the Sandiganbayan of malversation of public funds. The information alleged that on or about April 30, 1985, he willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously appropriated, embezzled, and converted to his personal use the sum of P15,309.00 from his collections. During pre-trial, petitioner admitted his position and the existence of a shortage of P15,309.00 as per the audit examination but questioned the validity and accuracy of the audit on constitutional grounds. The audit revealed that the shortage resulted from discrepancies between the amounts in the original official receipts issued to payees (P110.00 or P112.00) and the amounts recorded in the duplicate receipts and cashbook (P2.00), with the unrecorded differences totaling P15,309.00. Petitioner blamed his unofficial clerk/collector, Yvette Samaranos, whom he retained and entrusted with pre-signed official receipts and certifications, alleging she collected the proper fees but recorded reduced amounts. Petitioner made restitution of the full amount through installment deposits from June to November 1985.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner is criminally liable for malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code despite his defense that the shortage was caused by his unofficial clerk and that he had fully restituted the amount.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s decision finding petitioner guilty of malversation. The Court held that as the accountable officer, petitioner bore primary responsibility for the public funds. His negligence in allowing an unauthorized private individual to perform official functions, pre-signing official receipts, and failing to properly supervise collections rendered him liable. The defense that another person misappropriated the funds does not exculpate him from his primary accountability. The constitutional presumption in Article 217 that failure to have funds forthcoming upon demand is prima facie evidence of personal use is valid. Restitution of the misappropriated amount does not extinguish criminal liability; it merely affects civil liability and may be considered a mitigating circumstance analogous to voluntary surrender. Malversation is consummated whether done with intent or through negligence, and the same penalty is imposed.